Indeed. At one time that very liberalism was left wing.
Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
Hopefully this is not "too political" to warrant it being moved or deleted, but if I am not woefully misinformed, there was some hesitancy to admit Thatcher as a leader of UK conservatives because she was basically "a liberal" by the older reckoning of "liberal vs conservative." It was her economics that were "too liberal" for some of the older politicians in the conservative party. The point of this is "how times change," not "Thatcher was a secret liberal."
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
These stories are not only about views but also about preaching and influencing others.SDC wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:04 pmWith all due respect, you speak as if you’re exempt from the same level of responsibility for your own views. If you’re holding yours based on tradition then you’re sitting in the same boat.Eko Care wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:58 pm I think any careful observer can understand how a person with uncertain views which has been grasped tightly, reacts to others' observations.People have to reconsider not only his but also this kind of modern view holders' teaching s and opinions again.
What above story and more similar stories we get to know indicate is:
How modern people are very confident in believing radical uncertain views.
And how they become helpless and unconfident when the uncertainty bothers their mind when they are getting matured with age and understanding.
Do you say "rejecting Abhidhamma" and "non rejecting" are the same view?How are your views any different?
Or do you think "having-no-view" view as the best case?
Aren't there many instances of holding views not based on both tradition and uncertain speculations?
Or otherwise do you believe that no one can have an acceptable view or faith untill attainments?
Actually now a days, practicing these invented ideas is a tradition. It is categorised in "believing teacher" or "believing the appeared capability of a teacher" or "traditionalism" cases of Kalama sutta rather than "logic" or "inference" cases, I think.
This "logic" or "inference" cases are related to "original philologist" or to "founder of a certain speculatoin", I think.
Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
You seem to be very diligently trying to make those with non-traditional views well aware of the responsibility for their decision to promote or otherwise discuss those views, and what I’m asking you is, are you aware of the responsibility of claiming something to be “Right” just because it is traditional? I can respect dedication to any view on the basis of trying to verify whether or not it is Right (pending it has a reasonable basis somewhere in the Canon), but that is not what you are doing, and you seem totally unaware of the fact that unless you have seen your view through to sotapatti, you’re doing nothing other than playing it safe by “going with” what is most popular and accepted. And if that personal view through which you hold to a traditional Dhamma view is in fact not accurate, you’re the one promoting wrong view....but not only that...you’re also saying not to look anywhere else, which is where Right View would be in that case.
Just asking if you’re aware that what you’re doing is essentially as risky as what you’re accusing others of doing.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
Someone may have chosen classical Theravada just because it is most established.
And someone may have not chosen because of that.
So categorising the above two as same is not accurate.
Due to the influence of modern radical views, we can see the practitioners used to argue against classical views, saying "they go with most established".
It is not always the case.
This is a state which is common to any non-sotapanna. (you and me both).
And if that personal view through which you hold to a traditional Dhamma view is in fact not accurate, you’re the one promoting wrong view....
For an example, let's assume my view is correct. Then you are the one descouraging correct view here.
Th.is risk is there for anyone talking any kind of Dhamma. (non-sotapanna)
Eg: all Dhamma preaching monks, all Dhamma book authors, all posters of any kind of Dhamma in forums, all the lay supporters of a particular Dhamma, all the upajjhayas who train monks towards a particular direction.
This is not my words. The Blessed One has mentioned investigation as a Kusala.
but not only that...you’re also saying not to look anywhere else,
I know why most of you think like that.
It is because whenever a modernized one see a classical view holder, he tend to consider him as out-of-logic, due to the influence of modern anti-classical movement at least up to a certain degree.
They want their minds to be confident in those views, by attempting to prove to their own minds that all the classical people as not sensible.
Mettā.
Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
You’re trying too hard to go around what I’m saying, but at least you can see the risk to a sufficient degree. That is literally all I wanted to bring to the table. These various spring-loaded frustrations you have with other Buddhists are not part of how I understand others who hold different views than I do. Concerns like these certainly used to be something that would come up, but now it would be contrive if I were to force myself back into a position where competition with the views of others would be relevant at all. I barely understand that way anymore.Eko Care wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:03 pmSomeone may have chosen classical Theravada just because it is most established.
And someone may have not chosen because of that.
So categorising the above two as same is not accurate.
Due to the influence of modern radical views, we can see the practitioners used to argue against classical views, saying "they go with most established".
It is not always the case.
This is a state which is common to any non-sotapanna. (you and me both).
And if that personal view through which you hold to a traditional Dhamma view is in fact not accurate, you’re the one promoting wrong view....
For an example, let's assume my view is correct. Then you are the one descouraging correct view here.
Th.is risk is there for anyone talking any kind of Dhamma. (non-sotapanna)
Eg: all Dhamma preaching monks, all Dhamma book authors, all posters of any kind of Dhamma in forums, all the lay supporters of a particular Dhamma, all the upajjhayas who train monks towards a particular direction.
This is not my words. The Blessed One has mentioned investigation as a Kusala.
but not only that...you’re also saying not to look anywhere else,
I know why most of you think like that.
It is because whenever a modernized one see a classical view holder, he tend to consider him as out-of-logic, due to the influence of modern anti-classical movement at least up to a certain degree.
They want their minds to be confident in those views, by attempting to prove to their own minds that all the classical people as not sensible.
Mettā.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
Meaningless. Unsubstantiated. Non-Dhamma. The Buddha taught any teacher is to be scrutinized. Buddhagosa is old news; sincere Buddhists have moved on from Buddhagosa and into the real teachings found the the Suttas.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
Hi Eko Care
Like SDC, I would rather focus on what is helpful, rather than what is divisive. I don't have much use for pronouncements about how those who make use of Commentaries are not practising Dhamma, or how those who don't use Commentaries are not practising Dhamma.
Personally, I learned a lot from Ven Nanananda's books, especially from the courses that Ven Analayo led based on his talks. (Which I found more useful than discussions here that tended to conflate him with Ven Nanavira.)
You do raise some important points about faith, and the dangers of guru-worship that are worth considering. But in the end, how one proceeds is a personal choice.
Mike
I think you are taking SDC's sentence out of context. The full paragraph was:
I suspect that the sentence would have been clearer if it said: "How is the way you are holding your views any different?"With all due respect, you speak as if you’re exempt from the same level of responsibility for your own views. How are your views any different? If you’re holding yours based on tradition then you’re sitting in the same boat.
Like SDC, I would rather focus on what is helpful, rather than what is divisive. I don't have much use for pronouncements about how those who make use of Commentaries are not practising Dhamma, or how those who don't use Commentaries are not practising Dhamma.
Personally, I learned a lot from Ven Nanananda's books, especially from the courses that Ven Analayo led based on his talks. (Which I found more useful than discussions here that tended to conflate him with Ven Nanavira.)
You do raise some important points about faith, and the dangers of guru-worship that are worth considering. But in the end, how one proceeds is a personal choice.
Mike
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
Greetings Eko Care,
Did Nanavira Thera convert to Sri Lankan sectarianism on his death-bed too?
Asking for an SDC.
Metta,
Paul.
Did Nanavira Thera convert to Sri Lankan sectarianism on his death-bed too?
Asking for an SDC.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
Fake news!retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:13 pm Greetings Eko Care,
Did Nanavira Thera convert to Sri Lankan sectarianism on his desth-bed too?
Asking for an SDC.
Metta,
Paul.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
Greetings,
Indeed. And it's just as absurd as the claims re: Nanananda, but it would be true to form for Eko Care to whip out some unsubstantiated lies to support his evangelical promotion of Sri Lankan sectarianism.
Like others, I believe he would be better served praising that which he deems praiseworthy, and actually discussing Abhidhamma, the commentaries etc. rather than sullying it by association, through these perverse and baseless witch-hunts. Perhaps someone more ideologically aligned with Eko Care might wish to give him a nudge in the right direction before he beclowns himself any further?
Metta,
Paul.
Indeed. And it's just as absurd as the claims re: Nanananda, but it would be true to form for Eko Care to whip out some unsubstantiated lies to support his evangelical promotion of Sri Lankan sectarianism.
Like others, I believe he would be better served praising that which he deems praiseworthy, and actually discussing Abhidhamma, the commentaries etc. rather than sullying it by association, through these perverse and baseless witch-hunts. Perhaps someone more ideologically aligned with Eko Care might wish to give him a nudge in the right direction before he beclowns himself any further?
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
Thanks, Michael!
You’re right tho...density over clarity seems to be my style.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
That’s how we were able to - in the very least - get people to read Nanavira without obsessing over aspects of his life that couldn’t possibility affect the usefulness of his ideas.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:22 pm Greetings,
Indeed. And it's just absurd as the claims re: Nanananda, but it would be true to form for Eko Care to whip out some unsubstantiated lies to support his evangelical defence of Sri Lankan sectarianism.
Like others, I believe he would be better served praising that which he deems praiseworthy, and actually discussing Abhidhamma etc. rather than sullying it by association, through these perverse and baseless witch-hunts.
Metta,
Paul.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
Many of us indeed.
Nevertheless, sometimes, the harm caused by them are considered higher than the (great) benefit of them, from the ancient monks' point of view.
Because, Classically, the views are considered more serious than other (important) things.
Here again the information matters, I think. (Sources are people and not Early texts )
Ven. Analayo was not compatible with Bhikkhu Nanananda in views.
At the last meeting/meetings of them, they have argued and ven. Analayo had been criticized by Bhikkhu Nanananda about his sutta rejections and comparative studies.
It indicates that Ven. Analayo had been advocating Bhikkhu Nanananda's views without knowing his other views, just because he found him attracted by part of the views of Bhikkhu Nanananda.
But the listeners of those sermons can't see the reality and they might try to defend themselves by saying " It's doesn't affect".
I'm happy that you can at least see the points.
There are aspects of life that doesn't directly affect the usefulness of their deas.
At the same time, there are aspects of life that directly affect the usefulness of their deas.
Who doesn't know that !
Actually the fear of surrending to classical Theravada even when it sounds sensible, thinking that it forces us to believe it,
is the reason for being grown unnecessary defensive attitudes against the classical views, in modern minds.
Re: Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
This doesn’t make very much sense to me. It is about faith and trust, but surrendering would undermine either. The Buddha invited his disciples to see what he understood and the listener needs to commit to the work out of a concern that they are in actual danger. Thousands of suttas say as much and any person who reflects on n the danger of change and the inevitability of death - as the Buddha instructed - they will develop a sense of urgency and that is what will drive practice. I think surrender has connotations of giving away responsibility and critical thinking, something the Buddha always encouraged the listener to use appropriately.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3